Hey Dan, so when are you geniuses going to support the only politician who will obey the Constitution and the one who by doing so can create the most prosperous and free economy anywhere?
Hey Dan, so when are you geniuses going to support the only politician who will obey the Constitution and the one who by doing so can create the most prosperous and free economy anywhere? Ron Paul 2012!
Hey Dan, so when are you geniuses going to support the only politician who will obey the Constitution and the one who by doing so can create the most prosperous and free economy anywhere? Ron Paul 2012!
yeah just cut spending, cutting spending= cutting jobs, which equals no money back into the economy. thank the social media for scaring the fuck out of america into thinking spending a penny will essentially launch you into poverty. its easy to sit here and say HEY stop spending money. but if our government doesn't then im pretty sure the gap in classes would be INSANE. like............. really fucking poor.............super fucking rich.
Our stimulus goes to other countries? Yes. The U.S. Department of Energy revealed $60 million of the $1.2 billion given to the agency in economic stimulus funds to study climate change. While some might consider the expenditure frivolous, especially given the nation’s financial woes, it should be noted that some of the equipment was not even intended for use in the U.S. but rather was deployed to facilities in the Maldives, India and Australia.
For DEFENCE of the homeland! Not troops of some form in over 100 countries. The Constitution doesn't call for empire. It's supposed to REIGN IN the scumbags that are supposed to obey it, not bastardize it.
For DEFENCE of the homeland! Not troops of some form in over 100 countries. The Constitution doesn't call for empire. It's supposed to REIGN IN the scumbags that are supposed to obey it, not bastardize it.
my first reaction was that stimulus 1 did not lower the unemployment rate but only the federal reserve can print money; the states cant and the states have deficits. So job creation stimulus is needed. All the things that were wrong in stimulus 1 have to be corrected but a second stimulus is needed because job losses continue. It is the direct result of the governments policies.
@dachickenman For instance, the US gives subsidies to people who work in agriculture so we can be a top exporter in that industry. Say another country has a market advantage in agriculture and so it should be able to export better than the US. However, because the US gov't gives farmers money to produce it, they can export at a much lower price. This boosts our trade and hurts theirs, even though we are worse at agriculture. This is an uneven playing field and against the WTO regulations.
@whalenbrowne And it's an unlevel playing field caused by government intervention. That only supports my argument that it's government that creates unlevel playing fields.
This man is working for the CATO institute, formed by the multibillionaire KOCH family. He doesn't want to help people, he wants to F the middle class and poor.
Oh the jobless rate 'soared' from 8% to 10%. WOW. Maybe you didn't learn about the Great Depression in school but, the unemployment rate went up to 25% and was brought down to 9% with a stimulus, and everyone agrees that even that stimulus was too little, too late. You can learn a lot by looking to the past for answers.
Not even the Republican party will fully back a free market. Even McCain knew you can't 'bleed out' a recession. See how fast we lose our status as a superpower.
Free markets do not work out 'the kinks' they are the reason for them. Free markets give us monopolies, profiteering, outsourcing, no price ceilings or floors. I don't think those of you who are so willing to go the free market way fully understand it. It mainly helps big corporations, in the end, 1% of the population wins while the other 99% loses. This is why the big corporations fight so hard for a free market, so they can continue to profit without putting the interests of the country first.
And I went to school of knowledge at the international school of knowledge, duh.
Dude, speak English. You ever heard of college? You think you know all about the free market? Please, enlighten me as to why no country has a completely free market and why we decided a long time ago it wasn't good for our country.
Or, you could always just try to insult my intelligence and call everything you're wrong about 'ignorance'.
@whalenbrowne LOL, big corporations lobby for free markets the least of anyone. One example: Philip Morris, the nation's largest cigarette producer, helped write the tobacco regulation of last year. Free markets do not lead to monopolies, legal barriers to entry do. Even the most leftist economists, Paul Krugman included, recognize that price ceilings and price floors lead to shortages and surpluses, respectively. You really need to have empirical examples to back up these claims.
@dachickenman You're really going to use an example from the tobacco industry? Legal barriers are there to fight against monopolies. Price ceilings and floors would only lead to shortages and surpluses if done incorrectly. Think about it. If there is nothing to prevent a monopoly that is the only outcome. Regulations are in place to create a fair playing field. Without them, corporations can simply use their power and money to eliminate all competition.
@whalenbrowne You want another industry? Bankers, one of them Rockefeller, wrote the Federal Reserve Act. Nike supports Cap & Trade, even though it doesn't make any shoes in the U.S. (one of its competitors, New Balance, does). You know why you can't buy health insurance across state lines? Because that decrease competition to insurance providers.
How can legal barriers to entry be there to fight monopolies? That does not make any sense:
@dachickenman you're going to legally bar competitors to make sure there isn't a monopoly? Based on supply and demand, prices will find an equilibrium. The only way a price ceiling can have an effect is if it is lower than that equilibrium, vice versa for a price floor. If you have a price ceiling below equilibrium, that will cause a greater quantity to be demanded than producers will be willing to produce and therefore, a shortage. Vice versa for price floors.
@dachickenman We all know that the health insurance industry is a monopoly, and thats because of lack of regulation. There is no price ceiling for health insurance. Have you heard of the healthcare exchange that solves the very problem you are talking about? You say "Based on supply and demand, prices will find an equilibrium". This doesn't work with a monopoly or oligopoly. They can work to create an unreasonably high price. Your walmart example is not of a monopoly. Monopoly = no competitors.
@whalenbrowne Right, one of the most regulated industries in the country is a monopoly because of lack of regulation. It's regulation that causes there to be very few providers, and they can charge higher prices than they would in a free market because people can't buy insurance across state lines. A price ceiling set below equilibrium will cause more health care providers to exit the industry, leading to shortages. I did not say walmart, in reality, has a monopoly, that was a hypothetical.
@dachickenman its not so ridiculous. The way a free market works is that the person with the most money gets the most money so that as we go farther and farther down the line we end up with the top 1% controlling everything. If someone gets to that point there is nothing they can't do. You only see the bad regulation but don't acknowledge the regulations that are essential. Health and safety regs keep people from working in extremely dangerous conditions. Child labor laws, tariffs.
@whalenbrowne So if we got rid of child labor laws then we'd have a Dickensonian situation? I doubt it. It was the prosperity people gained through the free market that allowed them to stop sending their kids to work out of economic necessity. You need to understand that safety is a trade off. The gov't could mandate that every car maker builds tanks. Then we would be really safe. But that comes at the cost of performance, fuel mileage, road wear, etc. Trade-offs exist...
@whalenbrowne and consumers, not the government, should be allowed to choose them. If I am an employer, I will be forced to provide the correct balance of safety and payment to my employees. Safety increases costs, and so if I concentrated exclusively on safety, I would have nothing left to pay my employees. If I concentrated on paying them the most I could to retain them, some other employer will offer them a better balance of risk and pay.
@whalenbrowne As for tariffs, they only protect domestic industries at the price of consumers and other industries. For example, in the U.S. the steelworkers couldn't compete with foreign steel and convinced the gov't to raise a tariff. So jobs were saved in the steel industry. However, every industry that used steel had to pay more for it, and the consumers had to pay more for their products, so there was a loss of jobs in these industries. The lost jobs outnumbered the saved ones.
@dachickenman We got to this point overtime as it was shown to us that lack of regulations are extremely dangerous. Derivatives trading had absolutely no regulations, not even record-keeping. Look at how that turned out? Fraud was rampant and we lost a ridiculous amount of money. You think the water thing is so crazy, yet there are now numerous discussions over who can take water because companies like Coke are in fact draining water sources all over the world.
@whalenbrowne The way we got to this point was not because of lack of regulation, but because of a Federal Reserve system that increases the monetary supply and causes resources to be misallocated. But if lack of regulation actually caused it, please let me know what piece of regulation was missing and I'll forward that to my senators. But water is the most abundant resource on earth. It would be easier to gain total control on any other resource. Why not go control all the diamonds, gold, etc?
@dachickenman The reason to buy water is because it is a depleting resource and will be worth a lot of money in the future because everyone needs it. Tariffs encourage the purchase of domestic products. If everyone just got what was cheapest all the time America would have an even worse economy. Every industry that used steel simply had to pay the market rate for steel domestically. Its like the outsourcing argument. You get IT workers for 3$ a day overseas. Does that mean 3$ is the market rate?
@whalenbrowne "If everyone just go what was cheapest all the time America would have an even worst economy." So we should never shop for bargains but pay the highest price we can for everything? Free trade has really lifted countries out of poverty. This is not an ad hominen attack, I just want to ask you how you've educated yourself in economics. Please look up the concept of comparative advantage and you'll understand that free trade leads to higher production than autarky.
@dachickenman I do believe in free trade, but I also realize how it can hurt us domestically, at least initially. You are also not taking into effect labor standards, etc. I haven't educated myself, I've been educated by a professor of economics and another professor of international political economy. Where have you been educated?
@dachickenman So, do you believe we should outsource everything we can if it is cheaper? That's a serious question. Some people do, but you would at least have to acknowledge how it would hurt our domestic economy. Free trade is definately good for those with the comparative advantage, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I agree with you and I debated for free trade. However, using it as an excuse for unethical practices is not okay.
@whalenbrowne Yes, we should be free to buy from wherever and whomever we want. That is one of our fundamental rights. If, because of competition, there were job losses in the domestic economy, there would be jobs created in another industry in which the domestic economy has a comparative advantage. Both sides win. If a multinational wants to exploit workers, those workers have the option of not working for that company. So, the company has either no effect, or a positive effect on them.
@whalenbrowne I'm not really familiar with water speculation, probably because nobody does it. If so, why are you wasting your time talking to me when you could go find a public water fountain and hoard all the water at no charge?
@dachickenman Do you really think that misallocated resources was the reason for this recession? The problem is that we let things that are obviously broken go unfixed for far too long. And FYI, we have child labor right now. Companies like Nike go overseas where their is less risk of them being caught and hire children to do work for them. They similarly violate safety laws and minimum wage. Your example is of an ideal world. Sometimes there is no other employer.
@whalenbrowne Yes, misallocated resources were the reason, and are the reason for every recession. Since interest rates are arbitrarily set by the Fed, instead of basing them on savings, producers get signals that consumers are saving when they are actually spending and misinvest accordingly. The recession is a healthy process of these misallocated resources being liquidated. And FYI, domestic labor laws don't apply overseas so this isn't to avoid "getting caught."
@dachickenman The consumer can't always choose or make a difference so we elect those who can. Many companies break down unions so the workers don't have a voice or representation. As far as healthcare, there is a good reason for having certain things only doctors can do. Those can be debated and you could probably make a case for either. Medicare and Medicaid create competition and force not the doctors but the insurers to offer a reasonable price.
@whalenbrowne The reason consumers can't choose is because the elected made laws barring them from doing so. Medicare and Medicaid do not create competition, unless the goal is to see who can bankrupt the U.S. the fastest. The regulations that enable only doctors to perform certain procedures are not for consumer protection, but so there is less competition. They don't want others who can perform the same procedure for less money to be able to compete with them.
@dachickenman Healthcare cannot be economic because the demand is unlimited. If we set healthcare to the market equilibrium we would find that there is no end to demand. If you're dying, you will give everything you own for a chance to survive. Running healthcare based on profit makes no sense whatsoever.
@whalenbrowne Yes, it makes perfect sense, just like any other industry. By providing services that people want, companies earn profits, and lose money when they provide something they don't want. High profits will encourage others to enter the industry and innovate so they can charge lower prices than their competitors. This benefits consumers. And I don't know what you mean by setting healthcare to market equilibrium. Equilibrium is the point where demand meets supply.
@dachickenman You set the price to match the equillibrium. Healthcare is not 'just like any other industry'. Healthcare isn't one of the 'services that people want'. It is something people need. Do you at least admit that the demand of the consumer for healthcare is practically limitless? If the price of healthcare matches a person's demand, they end up paying their life savings for getting in a car accident.
@dachickenman the healthcare industry is not operating at equilibrium. Because people NEED healthcare and theres nothing they can do about it, the healthcare industry can charge whatever the hell it wants. That has nothing to do with over regulation. It's not the corporations fault, they are a corporation, its their job to make the most profit. We can't rely on corporations to make the decisions. Show me which regulations that hurt the healthcare industry or other industries for that matter.
@whalenbrowne Gladly. States, such as New Jersey, mandate that its citizens much purchase health insurance for things they cannot possibly use, such as prenatal care for men. Licensing laws encourage cartels because procedures that can easily be performed by a nurse have to be performed by doctors with licenses. This lowers competition and increases costs. Making employer provided insurance tax free, while individual insurance is not, encourages the third party payment system.
@whalenbrowne 3rd party payments, separating the user from the payer, leaves the consumer little incentive to conserve as they would using their own money. Organ shortages are an artificial phenomenon because the selling of organs is outlawed. Setting prices for Medicare and Medicaid distort markets because if the price is set below market value, doctors have to make up for it by charging other patients more. If it is above market value, then the gov't is overpaying. These regulations hurt.
@whalenbrowne I'm gonna have to ask you to think about it, because personally economics is what I think about all day. Let's say Wal-Mart was able to eliminate all competition (which, in a free market, it would only be able to do by offering lower prices/higher quality than anyone else can). These low prices would be good for consumers. But the problem that comes with monopolies is that firms can charge higher prices. But if walmart then did that, competitors would be drawn back into the market.
@whalenbrowne So, in this hypothetical, Wal-Mart does not really have a monopoly, because a monopoly involves barriers to competition. And regulations do not create a fair playing field. Think about any regulation that has been created and a larger company will always have an easier time complying with it. Please tell me of a regulation that creates a level playing field.
@dachickenman In your ideal world, someone could go out and buy all the water in the world, then charge 300 dollars a bottle. More regulations are meant to keep corporations who have a monetary advantage from forcibly controlling a market. Regulations come in all shapes and sizes and are for different reasons. Right now we have corporations lobbying for destroying regulation that keeps them from taking an unfair advantage of their competition.
@whalenbrowne Buy all the water in the world? Setting aside the absurdity of that example, that person would have compete for those resources. The fact that other people would outbid him for water because it has a greater marginal utility to them ensures that this would never happen. Tell me how a company can forcibly control a market.
Let me see if I have this right - if you're profusely bleeding and someone puts pressure on the wound to slow the bloodflow, if that doesn't work you want them to stop putting -any- pressure on the wound rather than putting -more- pressure on the wound?
The wound is from the Federal Reserve run by Progressives. The ONLY solution to economics is NO solution. Dr. Paul and Austrian economics gurus along with the forefathers of the US have been right all along. Free Markets free of Central Banks and regulations ALWAYS work out the kinks on their own. If someone gains a Monopoly it won't be for too long before someone else can do it better, cheaper and more cost effective than the last guy. Free Markets=Free Society. Regulated Markets=Slavery & Debt
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious; Washington is run by people you wouldn't trust to watch your child, who cannot balance a bank account, who punish the successful and reward the failures, who cozy up to union obstructionism yet say they are against corruption when many are as corrupt as can be! Worse yet, many people blindly assume the government is SUPPOSED to run most things, rather than rely on mostly self-government. I think Katrina proved the dangers of over-reliance on the state.
logically pesos in mexico are worthless because the government made so god damn many of them.
The one good thing is when our money is officially worthless or accepted as worthless, no country is going to want us to hire there over seas workers.
Do you think ever increasing tyranny, cronyism and trickle-up (i.e. bailouts/stimulus packages that take money from us and give it to banks/special interests) economics coming from Obama and Bush is a realistic solution for our problem?
Obviously, the realistic solution is the opposite of what we've been pursuing. Think-- if the income tax was suspended for a few years, we'd have insane economic growth, and for a fraction of the cost that we've spent making sure Wall St.'s bonuses are plump.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bullshit rhetoric and sophestry no longer taste as sweet in the mouths of Americans. No more talking points bub.
If you actually believe in the bullcrap you say, then explain your tired theory. Link the concept of a repeal of the income tax to "insane economic growth."
People (well, more like mindless parrots) like you arent even interesting to listen to anymore.
Well, if you're unable to reconcile logical arguments, there's no help for you. The more money in an economy, the better it is...
If something takes 99% of all available money out of the economy, and leaves 1% to be left to invest, spend, build factories, and employ people, that economy will perform a lot worse than something that leaves 99% of all available money in that economy.
Is it really that hard to logically connect the dots?
Conservative think tank baloney, I still don't believe conservative "information" at all and would rather have bread and circuses for the poor rather than a police state owned by the rich.
@vulgarghost - Freedom makes it possible for you to provide bread for your family, and perhaps even setup a circus on your own for your neighborhood. The police state would strip you of your wealth and then hand out bread and setup circuses to keep you from realizing what they did to you. I hope for you and your family's sake you look outside your biased opinion against "conservatives" and use common sense to judge the merits of information.
I'm sorry to tell anyone that doesn't know there will be little to no economic recovery in 10. Possible by mid 11 if Gov. stops it's big spending ways. If you look at real unemployment numbers like the U6 or sts, you will see unemployment is somewhere between 17 and 22%. One of the primary reasons for this is American business has no incentive to expand in the USA. Most are just trying to hold on until things get better, but they can't if Gov. is spending at it's current pace.
I agree, I think we should fund the Saudis with blood money and take that money and give it to Central American countries for their military coups and civil wars.
I mean, they aren't real Americans, right? So who cares if they die. Reagan sure didn't.
I need to get a t-shirt with that white house graph and the real values transposed onto it.
Thatmakessense356 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul for president!
mrearlygold 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Dan, so when are you geniuses going to support the only politician who will obey the Constitution and the one who by doing so can create the most prosperous and free economy anywhere?
mrearlygold 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Dan, so when are you geniuses going to support the only politician who will obey the Constitution and the one who by doing so can create the most prosperous and free economy anywhere? Ron Paul 2012!
mrearlygold 5 months ago
Hey Dan, so when are you geniuses going to support the only politician who will obey the Constitution and the one who by doing so can create the most prosperous and free economy anywhere? Ron Paul 2012!
mrearlygold 5 months ago
yeah just cut spending, cutting spending= cutting jobs, which equals no money back into the economy. thank the social media for scaring the fuck out of america into thinking spending a penny will essentially launch you into poverty. its easy to sit here and say HEY stop spending money. but if our government doesn't then im pretty sure the gap in classes would be INSANE. like............. really fucking poor.............super fucking rich.
nikesb2406 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our stimulus goes to other countries? Yes. The U.S. Department of Energy revealed $60 million of the $1.2 billion given to the agency in economic stimulus funds to study climate change. While some might consider the expenditure frivolous, especially given the nation’s financial woes, it should be noted that some of the equipment was not even intended for use in the U.S. but rather was deployed to facilities in the Maldives, India and Australia.
vechorik 6 months ago
IT IS SO SIMPLE: STOP BLOWING 100'S of BILLIONS ON MILITARY! ALL YOUR PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED!
tropickman 9 months ago
@tropickman The military is the one area the gov't is constitutionally obligated to spend :-)
robecva 9 months ago
@robecva
For DEFENCE of the homeland! Not troops of some form in over 100 countries. The Constitution doesn't call for empire. It's supposed to REIGN IN the scumbags that are supposed to obey it, not bastardize it.
mrearlygold 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robecva
For DEFENCE of the homeland! Not troops of some form in over 100 countries. The Constitution doesn't call for empire. It's supposed to REIGN IN the scumbags that are supposed to obey it, not bastardize it.
mrearlygold 5 months ago
@tropickman that helps, but just take a look at a pie chart of spending.. entitlements are gigantic. why not both?
hermoda 9 months ago
my first reaction was that stimulus 1 did not lower the unemployment rate but only the federal reserve can print money; the states cant and the states have deficits. So job creation stimulus is needed. All the things that were wrong in stimulus 1 have to be corrected but a second stimulus is needed because job losses continue. It is the direct result of the governments policies.
hwt2009 1 year ago
Dan Mitchel for President.
robertquentincobb 1 year ago
@dachickenman For instance, the US gives subsidies to people who work in agriculture so we can be a top exporter in that industry. Say another country has a market advantage in agriculture and so it should be able to export better than the US. However, because the US gov't gives farmers money to produce it, they can export at a much lower price. This boosts our trade and hurts theirs, even though we are worse at agriculture. This is an uneven playing field and against the WTO regulations.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne And it's an unlevel playing field caused by government intervention. That only supports my argument that it's government that creates unlevel playing fields.
dachickenman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This man is working for the CATO institute, formed by the multibillionaire KOCH family. He doesn't want to help people, he wants to F the middle class and poor.
indigo11274 1 year ago
Oh the jobless rate 'soared' from 8% to 10%. WOW. Maybe you didn't learn about the Great Depression in school but, the unemployment rate went up to 25% and was brought down to 9% with a stimulus, and everyone agrees that even that stimulus was too little, too late. You can learn a lot by looking to the past for answers.
Not even the Republican party will fully back a free market. Even McCain knew you can't 'bleed out' a recession. See how fast we lose our status as a superpower.
whalenbrowne 2 years ago
Free markets do not work out 'the kinks' they are the reason for them. Free markets give us monopolies, profiteering, outsourcing, no price ceilings or floors. I don't think those of you who are so willing to go the free market way fully understand it. It mainly helps big corporations, in the end, 1% of the population wins while the other 99% loses. This is why the big corporations fight so hard for a free market, so they can continue to profit without putting the interests of the country first.
whalenbrowne 2 years ago
And YOU went to school of knowledge where? You may convince the dummies, but spare some of us the ignorance.
Thefreemarket 2 years ago
And I went to school of knowledge at the international school of knowledge, duh.
Dude, speak English. You ever heard of college? You think you know all about the free market? Please, enlighten me as to why no country has a completely free market and why we decided a long time ago it wasn't good for our country.
Or, you could always just try to insult my intelligence and call everything you're wrong about 'ignorance'.
whalenbrowne 2 years ago
@whalenbrowne LOL, big corporations lobby for free markets the least of anyone. One example: Philip Morris, the nation's largest cigarette producer, helped write the tobacco regulation of last year. Free markets do not lead to monopolies, legal barriers to entry do. Even the most leftist economists, Paul Krugman included, recognize that price ceilings and price floors lead to shortages and surpluses, respectively. You really need to have empirical examples to back up these claims.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman You're really going to use an example from the tobacco industry? Legal barriers are there to fight against monopolies. Price ceilings and floors would only lead to shortages and surpluses if done incorrectly. Think about it. If there is nothing to prevent a monopoly that is the only outcome. Regulations are in place to create a fair playing field. Without them, corporations can simply use their power and money to eliminate all competition.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne You want another industry? Bankers, one of them Rockefeller, wrote the Federal Reserve Act. Nike supports Cap & Trade, even though it doesn't make any shoes in the U.S. (one of its competitors, New Balance, does). You know why you can't buy health insurance across state lines? Because that decrease competition to insurance providers.
How can legal barriers to entry be there to fight monopolies? That does not make any sense:
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman you're going to legally bar competitors to make sure there isn't a monopoly? Based on supply and demand, prices will find an equilibrium. The only way a price ceiling can have an effect is if it is lower than that equilibrium, vice versa for a price floor. If you have a price ceiling below equilibrium, that will cause a greater quantity to be demanded than producers will be willing to produce and therefore, a shortage. Vice versa for price floors.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman We all know that the health insurance industry is a monopoly, and thats because of lack of regulation. There is no price ceiling for health insurance. Have you heard of the healthcare exchange that solves the very problem you are talking about? You say "Based on supply and demand, prices will find an equilibrium". This doesn't work with a monopoly or oligopoly. They can work to create an unreasonably high price. Your walmart example is not of a monopoly. Monopoly = no competitors.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne Right, one of the most regulated industries in the country is a monopoly because of lack of regulation. It's regulation that causes there to be very few providers, and they can charge higher prices than they would in a free market because people can't buy insurance across state lines. A price ceiling set below equilibrium will cause more health care providers to exit the industry, leading to shortages. I did not say walmart, in reality, has a monopoly, that was a hypothetical.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman its not so ridiculous. The way a free market works is that the person with the most money gets the most money so that as we go farther and farther down the line we end up with the top 1% controlling everything. If someone gets to that point there is nothing they can't do. You only see the bad regulation but don't acknowledge the regulations that are essential. Health and safety regs keep people from working in extremely dangerous conditions. Child labor laws, tariffs.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne So if we got rid of child labor laws then we'd have a Dickensonian situation? I doubt it. It was the prosperity people gained through the free market that allowed them to stop sending their kids to work out of economic necessity. You need to understand that safety is a trade off. The gov't could mandate that every car maker builds tanks. Then we would be really safe. But that comes at the cost of performance, fuel mileage, road wear, etc. Trade-offs exist...
dachickenman 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne and consumers, not the government, should be allowed to choose them. If I am an employer, I will be forced to provide the correct balance of safety and payment to my employees. Safety increases costs, and so if I concentrated exclusively on safety, I would have nothing left to pay my employees. If I concentrated on paying them the most I could to retain them, some other employer will offer them a better balance of risk and pay.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne As for tariffs, they only protect domestic industries at the price of consumers and other industries. For example, in the U.S. the steelworkers couldn't compete with foreign steel and convinced the gov't to raise a tariff. So jobs were saved in the steel industry. However, every industry that used steel had to pay more for it, and the consumers had to pay more for their products, so there was a loss of jobs in these industries. The lost jobs outnumbered the saved ones.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman We got to this point overtime as it was shown to us that lack of regulations are extremely dangerous. Derivatives trading had absolutely no regulations, not even record-keeping. Look at how that turned out? Fraud was rampant and we lost a ridiculous amount of money. You think the water thing is so crazy, yet there are now numerous discussions over who can take water because companies like Coke are in fact draining water sources all over the world.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne The way we got to this point was not because of lack of regulation, but because of a Federal Reserve system that increases the monetary supply and causes resources to be misallocated. But if lack of regulation actually caused it, please let me know what piece of regulation was missing and I'll forward that to my senators. But water is the most abundant resource on earth. It would be easier to gain total control on any other resource. Why not go control all the diamonds, gold, etc?
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman The reason to buy water is because it is a depleting resource and will be worth a lot of money in the future because everyone needs it. Tariffs encourage the purchase of domestic products. If everyone just got what was cheapest all the time America would have an even worse economy. Every industry that used steel simply had to pay the market rate for steel domestically. Its like the outsourcing argument. You get IT workers for 3$ a day overseas. Does that mean 3$ is the market rate?
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne "If everyone just go what was cheapest all the time America would have an even worst economy." So we should never shop for bargains but pay the highest price we can for everything? Free trade has really lifted countries out of poverty. This is not an ad hominen attack, I just want to ask you how you've educated yourself in economics. Please look up the concept of comparative advantage and you'll understand that free trade leads to higher production than autarky.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman I do believe in free trade, but I also realize how it can hurt us domestically, at least initially. You are also not taking into effect labor standards, etc. I haven't educated myself, I've been educated by a professor of economics and another professor of international political economy. Where have you been educated?
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@dachickenman So, do you believe we should outsource everything we can if it is cheaper? That's a serious question. Some people do, but you would at least have to acknowledge how it would hurt our domestic economy. Free trade is definately good for those with the comparative advantage, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I agree with you and I debated for free trade. However, using it as an excuse for unethical practices is not okay.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne Yes, we should be free to buy from wherever and whomever we want. That is one of our fundamental rights. If, because of competition, there were job losses in the domestic economy, there would be jobs created in another industry in which the domestic economy has a comparative advantage. Both sides win. If a multinational wants to exploit workers, those workers have the option of not working for that company. So, the company has either no effect, or a positive effect on them.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne I'm not really familiar with water speculation, probably because nobody does it. If so, why are you wasting your time talking to me when you could go find a public water fountain and hoard all the water at no charge?
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman Well you should do some research on it, because there are many people doing it.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@dachickenman Do you really think that misallocated resources was the reason for this recession? The problem is that we let things that are obviously broken go unfixed for far too long. And FYI, we have child labor right now. Companies like Nike go overseas where their is less risk of them being caught and hire children to do work for them. They similarly violate safety laws and minimum wage. Your example is of an ideal world. Sometimes there is no other employer.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne Yes, misallocated resources were the reason, and are the reason for every recession. Since interest rates are arbitrarily set by the Fed, instead of basing them on savings, producers get signals that consumers are saving when they are actually spending and misinvest accordingly. The recession is a healthy process of these misallocated resources being liquidated. And FYI, domestic labor laws don't apply overseas so this isn't to avoid "getting caught."
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman The consumer can't always choose or make a difference so we elect those who can. Many companies break down unions so the workers don't have a voice or representation. As far as healthcare, there is a good reason for having certain things only doctors can do. Those can be debated and you could probably make a case for either. Medicare and Medicaid create competition and force not the doctors but the insurers to offer a reasonable price.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne The reason consumers can't choose is because the elected made laws barring them from doing so. Medicare and Medicaid do not create competition, unless the goal is to see who can bankrupt the U.S. the fastest. The regulations that enable only doctors to perform certain procedures are not for consumer protection, but so there is less competition. They don't want others who can perform the same procedure for less money to be able to compete with them.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman Healthcare cannot be economic because the demand is unlimited. If we set healthcare to the market equilibrium we would find that there is no end to demand. If you're dying, you will give everything you own for a chance to survive. Running healthcare based on profit makes no sense whatsoever.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne Yes, it makes perfect sense, just like any other industry. By providing services that people want, companies earn profits, and lose money when they provide something they don't want. High profits will encourage others to enter the industry and innovate so they can charge lower prices than their competitors. This benefits consumers. And I don't know what you mean by setting healthcare to market equilibrium. Equilibrium is the point where demand meets supply.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman You set the price to match the equillibrium. Healthcare is not 'just like any other industry'. Healthcare isn't one of the 'services that people want'. It is something people need. Do you at least admit that the demand of the consumer for healthcare is practically limitless? If the price of healthcare matches a person's demand, they end up paying their life savings for getting in a car accident.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@dachickenman the healthcare industry is not operating at equilibrium. Because people NEED healthcare and theres nothing they can do about it, the healthcare industry can charge whatever the hell it wants. That has nothing to do with over regulation. It's not the corporations fault, they are a corporation, its their job to make the most profit. We can't rely on corporations to make the decisions. Show me which regulations that hurt the healthcare industry or other industries for that matter.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne Gladly. States, such as New Jersey, mandate that its citizens much purchase health insurance for things they cannot possibly use, such as prenatal care for men. Licensing laws encourage cartels because procedures that can easily be performed by a nurse have to be performed by doctors with licenses. This lowers competition and increases costs. Making employer provided insurance tax free, while individual insurance is not, encourages the third party payment system.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne 3rd party payments, separating the user from the payer, leaves the consumer little incentive to conserve as they would using their own money. Organ shortages are an artificial phenomenon because the selling of organs is outlawed. Setting prices for Medicare and Medicaid distort markets because if the price is set below market value, doctors have to make up for it by charging other patients more. If it is above market value, then the gov't is overpaying. These regulations hurt.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne I'm gonna have to ask you to think about it, because personally economics is what I think about all day. Let's say Wal-Mart was able to eliminate all competition (which, in a free market, it would only be able to do by offering lower prices/higher quality than anyone else can). These low prices would be good for consumers. But the problem that comes with monopolies is that firms can charge higher prices. But if walmart then did that, competitors would be drawn back into the market.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne So, in this hypothetical, Wal-Mart does not really have a monopoly, because a monopoly involves barriers to competition. And regulations do not create a fair playing field. Think about any regulation that has been created and a larger company will always have an easier time complying with it. Please tell me of a regulation that creates a level playing field.
dachickenman 1 year ago
@dachickenman In your ideal world, someone could go out and buy all the water in the world, then charge 300 dollars a bottle. More regulations are meant to keep corporations who have a monetary advantage from forcibly controlling a market. Regulations come in all shapes and sizes and are for different reasons. Right now we have corporations lobbying for destroying regulation that keeps them from taking an unfair advantage of their competition.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
@whalenbrowne Buy all the water in the world? Setting aside the absurdity of that example, that person would have compete for those resources. The fact that other people would outbid him for water because it has a greater marginal utility to them ensures that this would never happen. Tell me how a company can forcibly control a market.
dachickenman 1 year ago
Let me see if I have this right - if you're profusely bleeding and someone puts pressure on the wound to slow the bloodflow, if that doesn't work you want them to stop putting -any- pressure on the wound rather than putting -more- pressure on the wound?
RedwoodGeorge 2 years ago
The wound is from the Federal Reserve run by Progressives. The ONLY solution to economics is NO solution. Dr. Paul and Austrian economics gurus along with the forefathers of the US have been right all along. Free Markets free of Central Banks and regulations ALWAYS work out the kinks on their own. If someone gains a Monopoly it won't be for too long before someone else can do it better, cheaper and more cost effective than the last guy. Free Markets=Free Society. Regulated Markets=Slavery & Debt
FireZeus 2 years ago
lmao fake research. please folks think for yourselves and not listen to just one john like this guy or me.
clearly you don't know what an estimate is OP.
kapono87 2 years ago
Impeach the Kenyan.
gaserjd 2 years ago
Watch the video:
Fiat Empire - The Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional
It's here on YouTube!
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious; Washington is run by people you wouldn't trust to watch your child, who cannot balance a bank account, who punish the successful and reward the failures, who cozy up to union obstructionism yet say they are against corruption when many are as corrupt as can be! Worse yet, many people blindly assume the government is SUPPOSED to run most things, rather than rely on mostly self-government. I think Katrina proved the dangers of over-reliance on the state.
kev3d 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d
1 Go to world's most viewed Anti-Obama video - 3 Mill views/8dys /watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY
2 Obama's perverted abomination of sex with his father in his poem "Pop"
3 He was announced: his election-victory was headlines and on the same front pages the lottery drew the Antichrist's 666
He was damned, jinxed and cursed for all eternity
He can do nothing against that fate, and must accept it
Reveal this worldwide to everyone even the furthest reaches and make it known perfectly clearly
ObamasTheBeast 2 years ago
Comment removed
BLUEANGEL7777777777 2 years ago
logically pesos in mexico are worthless because the government made so god damn many of them.
The one good thing is when our money is officially worthless or accepted as worthless, no country is going to want us to hire there over seas workers.
No country wants another countries garbage.
Unless their paid.
BLUEANGEL7777777777 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dan Mitchel---please lick my balls unless you have a realistic alternative. Operative word is "realistic"
yanikv 2 years ago
Do you think ever increasing tyranny, cronyism and trickle-up (i.e. bailouts/stimulus packages that take money from us and give it to banks/special interests) economics coming from Obama and Bush is a realistic solution for our problem?
Obviously, the realistic solution is the opposite of what we've been pursuing. Think-- if the income tax was suspended for a few years, we'd have insane economic growth, and for a fraction of the cost that we've spent making sure Wall St.'s bonuses are plump.
mashed107 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bullshit rhetoric and sophestry no longer taste as sweet in the mouths of Americans. No more talking points bub.
If you actually believe in the bullcrap you say, then explain your tired theory. Link the concept of a repeal of the income tax to "insane economic growth."
People (well, more like mindless parrots) like you arent even interesting to listen to anymore.
yanikv 2 years ago
Well, if you're unable to reconcile logical arguments, there's no help for you. The more money in an economy, the better it is...
If something takes 99% of all available money out of the economy, and leaves 1% to be left to invest, spend, build factories, and employ people, that economy will perform a lot worse than something that leaves 99% of all available money in that economy.
Is it really that hard to logically connect the dots?
mashed107 2 years ago
hey yanikv, you don't need a linked theory its a fact.
Its throughout history Free markets move faster and develop faster too with stable prices.
Even our grand parents lived to see gas prices never fluctuating back in there- hey day.
They had more of a free market.
But as an Example: Try Panama.
They have a Republic...NOT A DEMOCRACY.
Republic does not mean having a Ruler/Rulers.
It means their Every one Has the Same Rights and don't infringe on anybody else's.
Beside that do what you like.
BLUEANGEL7777777777 2 years ago 2
Mashed your retarded, and probably offended by the word retarded...and being offended is boring.
Not being offended is more interesting.
BLUEANGEL7777777777 2 years ago
Comment removed
mashed107 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's you're, not you're, genius.
Was that a knee-jerk reaction? I'm in favor of free markets.
mashed107 2 years ago
or your*
mashed107 2 years ago
Look, all you have to do is watch 10 seconds of this guy to know that he looks, talks, and acts like a sleazy used car salesman.
So whatever the hell is point of view is; it's a pretty safe bet to have the opposing point of view.
MarkG45 2 years ago
Conservative think tank baloney, I still don't believe conservative "information" at all and would rather have bread and circuses for the poor rather than a police state owned by the rich.
vulgarghost 2 years ago
@vulgarghost - Freedom makes it possible for you to provide bread for your family, and perhaps even setup a circus on your own for your neighborhood. The police state would strip you of your wealth and then hand out bread and setup circuses to keep you from realizing what they did to you. I hope for you and your family's sake you look outside your biased opinion against "conservatives" and use common sense to judge the merits of information.
Kremlin1813 2 years ago
How about a bread-line and a state approved circus and a state owned by a politburo? THAT is where things are headed.
kev3d 2 years ago
You need to deinterlace your video when you compress it. It is causing those strange ghosts when Dan moves his hands.
liberty56567 2 years ago
That tie is sharp. Dan Mitchell, I hope your wife keeps you on a short leash. That is one good looking libertarian!
gandrewwork 2 years ago
Dan Mitchell is great. So articulate and easy to understand. Same reason I like David Boaz.
Thorbie 2 years ago 3
That tie is distracting.
shiftedstuff 2 years ago
I'm sorry to tell anyone that doesn't know there will be little to no economic recovery in 10. Possible by mid 11 if Gov. stops it's big spending ways. If you look at real unemployment numbers like the U6 or sts, you will see unemployment is somewhere between 17 and 22%. One of the primary reasons for this is American business has no incentive to expand in the USA. Most are just trying to hold on until things get better, but they can't if Gov. is spending at it's current pace.
robertcgage 2 years ago 3
Hope the next GOP pres. candidate is a conservative like Reagan. No more moderates!
jimmmmie 2 years ago 3
More like has to be a conservative, that hope thing did not work out so well. I agree no more moderates ever.
irisojects 2 years ago
I agree, I think we should fund the Saudis with blood money and take that money and give it to Central American countries for their military coups and civil wars.
I mean, they aren't real Americans, right? So who cares if they die. Reagan sure didn't.
MarkG45 2 years ago
wow, that really angers up the ol' blood
a4finger 2 years ago 3
Barry can take this stimulus and shove it up his ass.
johnnybravo234 2 years ago 5
Barry certainly shoved it up ours,pay back would be awesome!
irisojects 2 years ago
Well said. Keep 'em coming!
KohnanTB 2 years ago 7
ALL obamie "Stimuli" are DEADLY POISON.
3martijns 2 years ago 8
Great video, again!
XRayden 2 years ago 12
@XRayden I AGREE, GREAT VIDEO!
ceasey0xoogurl 2 years ago 4
i love these videos
Vertedism 2 years ago 11